RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RSA No.792 and 1238 of 2013, as the same have arisen out of one civil suit between the same parties.
(2.) SATWANT Singh, plaintiff, (who is now being represented by his LRs), had filed the instant suit seeking the following relief: - "Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of Gair Mumkin House bounded as under: - North: Road South: Bagh Singh East: Sadhu Singh West: Manohar Singh, Amar Singh etc. of area measuring OB -3B -3B half share of land measuring OB -6B -6B comprising of Khata No.383, Khatauni No.447, Khasra No.926, situated in Vill. Thareekay, Tehsil and District Ludhiana,H.B. No.156, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1992 -93. AND The sale deed vide vasika No.20174 dt. 16.11.89 of the above said land executed and registered before the Sub Registrar, Ludhiana and mutation No.3853 dt.5.12.89 is a result of fraud, misrepresentation, personation and without consideration and does not in any way effect the title of the plaintiff on the property described above and is mere shaky transaction without consideration. AND for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff or alienating by way of mortgage, sale, transfer of the property in dispute in any manner whatsoever in the Gair Mumkin House described above or through his attorney, agents, otherwise than due course of law, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence." The suit was contested by defendant Nachhattar Singh. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration of this Court: - "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the sale deed vide vasika No.20174 dt.16.11.89 is null and void and without consideration? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 5. Relief."
(3.) THE suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2011. LRs of the plaintiff filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court which was partly allowed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2012, in the following manner, declining the remaining relief: - "It is ordered that the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that he is in established possession of the suit property and he cannot be dispossessed therefrom by force, but in due course of law. However, the appeal of appellant is dismissed to the effect that he is owner of the suit property." ;